Summary 2007 WY 60

Summary of Decision issued April 13, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use the citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Veys v. Applequist, Jones, Reed and Pybus Alaska Resorts, LLC

Citation: 2007 WY 60

Docket Number: 06-161

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellants (Defendants): Larry B. Jones of Simpson Kepler & Edwards, LLC, a division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, PC, Cody, Wyoming; Diane Vaksal Smith of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, PC, Englewood, Colorado. Argument by Ms. Smith.

Representing Appellees (Plaintiffs): Mark W. Gifford, Casper, Wyoming; Darin B. Scheer of Bjork Lindley Littler, PC, Lander, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Gifford.

Issues: Whether the trial court improperly denied Appellants’ motion for a directed verdict at the close of Appellees’ case-in-chief, because Appellees did not proffer any admissible or relevant evidence in support of the claim for “future damages.” Whether the trial court erred in permitting the jury to determine the claims for “future damages” because of a lack of sufficient, competent evidence. Whether the jury’s verdict awarding $2,528,324.00 in future damages is not supported by sufficient, competent evidence. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Appellants’ post-trial motions, seeking to set aside the jury’s verdict for “future damages.”

Facts/Discussion: Applequist, Jones, Reed and Pybus (Buyers) filed suit against Veys, individually and d/b/a Lone Eagle Resorts, Inc., Pybus Point Lodge, LLC, and Alan J. Veys Properties LLC, (Sellers) for breach of an agreement to sell a fishing lodge business in Alaska. After a trial, the jury determined Sellers had breached the agreement and awarded Buyers a total of $3,000,000 in damages, including $471,676 in past damages and $2,528,324 in future damages. The individual buyers were residents of Wyoming and their LLC was formed in Wyoming prior to commencement of the action. The parties chose Wyoming as the forum for any dispute arising from the sales and purchase agreement (PSA) and elected to apply Alaska procedural and substantive law to any such dispute.
Standards of Review and Procedural Law: Under Alaska law, claims of error in denial of a motion for a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict are reviewed on appeal with the same standards utilized by the trial court in making its determination on the motions. The Court’s role is not to weigh the conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, but to determine whether the evidence is such that reasonable jurors could not differ in their judgment. Similarly, using Alaska law, the Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court’s decision to give jury instructions on a party’s theory of the case by applying the same standard utilized by the trial court. The district court’s decision on a motion for a new trial is subject to a less stringent review resting in the trial court’s discretion. The standard of review regarding a motion for remittitur, states that it is proper only when a jury returns an otherwise proper verdict awarding an amount of damages that the evidence cannot reasonably support.
Sellers contend the district court erred by 1) refusing to grant their motion for a directed verdict on the issue of future damages; 2) instructing the jury on the Buyer’s claim for future damages; and, 3) denying their post-trial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial and/or remittitur. All three questions required a determination of whether there was sufficient evidence of future damages to justify submission of the issue to the jury. This inquiry only considered whether there was evidence of any future damages; it was not concerned with the amount of the damages awarded by the jury. Applying the appropriate standard, the Court concluded Buyers presented ample evidence to warrant allowing the jury to decide whether they had suffered future damages resulting from Sellers’ breach.
The law specifically allows calculation of future lost profits damages by looking at the past profits of an on-going business. The Court reviewed the evidence presented and stated there was simply no question that Buyers’ future damages claim had been supported by sufficient evidence to justify giving the jury instructions on, and allowing it to consider, the issue.
The issues of remittitur and whether a new trial was warranted required a determination of whether the trial evidence supported the amount of future damages awarded to Buyers by the jury. Buyers put forth evidence of future damages, including future lost profits, and there was evidence that they may have incurred expenses to finance all or part of the purchase. They also presented evidence suggesting they could have purchased the property outright, incurring little or no financing costs. Sellers had the responsibility to convince the jury that debt service costs would reduce Buyers’ future damages. They did little in that regard, nor did they request the district court to specifically instruct the jury to consider debt service in calculating Buyers’ future damages. Sellers did not direct the Court to any legal authority suggesting the district court’s failure to specifically instruct the jury to account for the financing costs in its award was erroneous. The jury was left to sift through the evidence and fashion an appropriate future damages award and the record supports its efforts to do so.

Holding: Sellers defended this case on the theory that the parties had not entered into an enforceable contract, and did not expend much time or effort on the damages element of Buyer’s claims. Buyers on the other hand, presented credible, though perhaps not overwhelming, evidence of the benefits they would not realize because of Sellers’ breach. When Mr. Veys (Seller) admitted at trial that an agreement had been reached, Sellers’ defense was seriously eroded, and that was reflected in the jury’s verdict. The Court concluded as did the district court that the jury award fell within the mathematical parameters supported by the evidence and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. On appeal, Seller had a heavy burden in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s award of future damages to Buyers. Considering the record presented in the record and the applicable standards of review, the Court concluded Seller had not met their burden.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2trt3q .